and reagan also initially was down there, he also was next the to chet arthur, and he's moving up, but he hasn't reached the level except in the most recent poll in 2005 by "the wall street journal." so what about the presidents' history that the voters didn't care for? one that i really have to talk about, maybe stir up some energy in the room s wilson. the voters really couldn't wait to get rid of that guy by the end of his second term. cleveland is an interesting case in point, john adams and harry trueman. now, harry truman is a fascinating case in point, and he, to me, sort of personifies a significant element of this whole theme in terms of how the voters judge the presidents and how the historians judge the presidents. totally different. historians look at a president's full tenure in office, whatever that might be, two terms, one term, partial terms, whatever, and then look at what he's accomplished and say, good and not so good, terrible, whatever. and they rate him accordingly. the voters look at their president as they were invited to, by the constitution in four-year increm